About your Search

20120928
20120928
Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4
the obama administration is doing right now it's not that many believe could different than what the bush administration did in the two terms especially at the end and given that there is that consensus that's one of the reasons they are not issued in the political campaign but i think it's also one of the reasons why things are in the national security area. >> this will be the last security to that question. >> i think a lot will depend on who the next president is, because i think that there will be several justices who are getting older but i think most of them would feel if they are voluntarily retiring and not forced to do so by health concerns or some other extenuating circumstances the honorable thing to do would be retiring during the term of the party that appointed you in the first place so you could see justice ginsburg now that she's accomplished. i think she's trying to make a record for how long she's on the court and she will accomplish that in 2014. you may see scalia or kennedy retire if they get president romney. it makes a huge potential shift in the court based on the
be the point that the obama administration defends the defense of marriage act and president romney will defend the constitutionality, but it doesn't seem that social conservative question has a lot of allotted salience in some unlike a presidential debate. so i think other than health care i see much happening. >> i think it will not happen. and here is why. no major national political figure has attacked affirmative action publicly since 1996 or before. it is kind of remarkable. the republicans during the 90s for a while were seen some political profit in attacking affirmative action given the polls. don't do it anymore and the democrats, john kerry and the early 90s, joe lieberman in the early 90s and others said maybe it is time to stop these racial preferences. the democratic leadership council was inching down that road. but that is all gone. i've spoken to republican politicians, why is that? the answer is we get so if we ever raise their voices against affirmative action it is just not worth the cost, not worth the hassle. part of it ironically was an incredibly bitter campaign in calif
it advancing under continued obama administration? and what is the government supposed to do, what might happen if they can't get legislation passed? >> i wouldn't put it in a box under each administration. this is an issue that is a significant threat to our nation. is a threat to our financial security. it's a threat to our national security. it's got to be taken seriously regardless of who is in office. ideally what i would like to see is somebody in the white house, in office perhaps, that is responsible for coordinating this across the entire government. as a direct report to the president of the trade. somebody who's got the authority of the president of the united states to make decisions, and to coordinate this across the sectors. there's no single government agency that has the ability, the capacity to respond to this or to work this. people talk about nsa all the time, and general alexander i think is a real patriot is someone who cares about this country and he's got great capability, but that is one piece of the solution. somebody needs to coordinate that across the entire, the whol
obama recently declined to defend and the administration is enforcing it. the house has created the bipartisan legal advisory group. and the fans these laws since the administration abdicated its role in defending them and paul clement in that task. there are several cases all of which have petitions to decide. the first one and probably the front runner is a combination case, personnel management and the department of health and human services. it came out of massachusetts. two cases have been combined and they argue the equal protection clause violates section 3 of the defense of marriage act because the defense of marriage act violates the equal protection clause because there is no rational basis for this or it doesn't pass strict scrutiny. the idea of which level of scrutiny must pass has been questioned so we're happy to argue both. elena kagan was involved at the district court level during confirmation hearings that came out and questions her office had been involved in doing internal discussions of strategies in the case so she would be recused from that case and that p
Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4